Pages

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Many times over the past 4 years we have seen articles and
blog entries that stated that a governor was beholding to the Koch’s or they
were passing legislation by ALEC, or were acting like an ALECer, but we could
never connect them directly to ALEC.

Reason being is that many of them were not legislators
before they became governor, so they didn’t have a chance to be a documented
ALEC member, or in ALEC tradition, their membership was hidden from view.

But - - sometimes you will find ALEC hiding behind the curtain
–

Within the last month – the following connections have been
made by me and fellow researchers and I thought you should know about them

Currently – a Commissioner on the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey

Served on the ALEC's Private Enterprise Board between 2001
and 2004

Keith Gardner to NM Gov Susanna Martinez

Chief of Staff

“Keith Gardner is Governor Susana Martinez's chief of staff which makes him one of the most powerful men in New Mexico.”

ALEC member

Art Pope to NC Gov McCrory

Gov.-elect Pat McCrory expanded his cabinet selections by
three on Thursday, and named a trio of key staffers that includes controversial
political financier Art Pope.

ALEC member

John Thrasher to FL Gov Scott

"I want to thank Sen. Thrasher for agreeing to be
chairman of my re-election campaign," Scott said. "He has been a
trusted adviser throughout my first term, and will be a key supporter in my
campaign for a second term."

American Legislative Exchange Council Legislator of the Year
1998

Previous to his time as a legislative member – he was a
lobbyist for

ALEC member Southern Strategy Group

Chris Atkins to IN Gov Pence

Pence made his first significant policy hire, bring­ing on
Chris Atkins as his policy director.

Atkins was director of tax and fiscal policy at the

American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

June
2001 – August 2004 (3 years 3 months)

Dick Posthumus to MI Gov Rick Snyder

On 8 November 2010, Governor-elect Rick Snyder named
Posthumus to be his senior adviser and legislative lobbyist.
2001 - Listed as an ALEC "Leader in the States"
ALEC Board of Directors 1992 - 1996

“It is unfortunate to
learn Google has ended its membership in the American Legislative Exchange
Council as a result of public pressure from left-leaning individuals and
organizations who intentionally confuse free market policy perspectives for
climate change denial.

REMINDER:The
freemarket can not exist while ALEC legislators intentionally and maliciously manipulate
the market using corporate written legislation.

The true free market exists when the market reacts to CONSUMERS
who make their will known to corporations – and that is exactly what happened in
this instance.
ALEC doesn't defend the freemarket - ALEC manipulates the freemarket to enhance corporate profit.

It doesn't matter how many times ALEC yells - "Look - there's a squirrel over there." - and screams "left leaning groups", every action ALEC takes, all belongs to ALEC, ALEC owns it!
In relation to that
ALEC doesn't even have their side of their aisle behind them - they are extremists.
Tea Partier blogs (bless their ignorant little souls) think ALEC is an offshoot of the Democratic party.
The John Birch Society even thinks ALEC is not that Smart.

“At our recent Annual Meeting in Dallas, we were pleased to host a roundtable
conversation between a variety of companies—including Google—regarding
renewable energy deployment and climate change. The conversations held in Dallas were intended to
build understanding and pioneer future policy approaches where organizations
could find common ground on issues of climate change, energy generation and
government mandates. And, I personally intend to continue this work."

This time around, Taylor,
D-Madison, attended a subcommittee on how to “think and talk about climate
change” and an environmental discussion that featured a speaker representing
tech firms Google, eBay, Facebook and Yahoo.Taylor said
the representative told the “coal is king” ALEC crowd that they needed to
create more policies favorable to renewable energy. The representative spoke of
the need for these companies to build large datacenters that use a lot of power
to operate.Taylor said some attendees asked how the companies explain this choice to
their shareholders, while others asked why they should support subsidized
energy like wind and solar.Taylor said
the attendees were told coal and oil is also subsidized and shareholders are
told the use of renewable energy is a better long-term financial option that is
increasingly popular with customers.

At the end of the presentation, the energy giants thanked him, praised his
attendance, and peed in the corners.This was coal country, and no Internet guy was going to tell them otherwise.So they started their anti-renewable litany of objections:

Renewables aren't economical
(Internet guy responded that they are economical);

Renewables exist because of
subsidies (Internet guy responded that all energy is subsidized);

And net metering is terrible
(Internet guy responded that though they don't use net metering, they have
encouraged renewables).

So much for progress.By the end of the day, any hope for a reasonable dialogue around renewable
energy had totally evaporated.

Back to the ALEC statement

“In the case of energy generation, ALEC believes renewable
energy should expand based on consumer demand, not as a result of a government
mandate"

This sentence was written and released just over 24 hours after 400,000 CONSUMERS marched
through the streets of New York City
to wake up the leaders of the world

not a corporate controlled ALEC meeting
ALEC and its members are so removed from anything other than themselves - they can't even see the fossil fuel polluted forest for the ALEC decimated dying trees.

"Many misunderstand the American Legislative Exchange Council
and its legislator-led, free market priorities."

Legislator led free market priorities

BULLSHIT

The priorities are determined by Corporate entities.
as demonstratedHERE
and HERE
and HERE
and HERE pp 84-90

"However, ALEC and its members will continue to advance
limited government, free markets and federalism through dialogue, debate and
model policy formulation."

Which really means

However, ALEC and its CORPORATE members, will advance
CORPORATE process with legislation written by corporations “to advance limited
government, free markets and federalism”

The ALEC model of governance is a threat to the United States of America
and to the nations of the world – who have delegates attending ALEC meetings.
ALEC knows it is a threat that is why they
continue to make decisions in secret - behind closed doors and mislead the public with statements as shown above.

#VoteNo2ALEC

ALEC is one nasty,
evil organization.

ALEC hates the
control of the Federal government.

ALEC hates control at
the local level.

ALEC members only want evil ALEC state legislative members to have control.

A recent letter suggested that new voting laws in Montana
come from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of which I am a
member. This assertion is incorrect, and I'd like to explain the actual focus
of the organization.

Nice lead-in for an OpEd that is full of incorrect assertions.

The American Legislative Exchange Council is a nonprofit
membership organization that brings together state legislators, policy analysts
and members of the business community to share ideas and create draft model
solutions to issues facing the states. ALEC members are guided by the
principles of limited government, free markets and federalism, and the issues
ALEC members work on and the model policies they create are all on the ALEC
website for anyone to see.

“the issues ALEC members work on and the model policies
they create are all on the ALEC website for anyone to see.”

Only ALEC legislative members can introduce draft model
policy, and after the discussions are had and the votes are taken, only the
23-member ALEC Board of Legislators can approve what model policy the
organization adopts. ALEC is guided by legislators, just as members are guided
by the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.

“This change is intended to preserve and protect the
unique and valuable nature of our public-private partnership,” Bowman wrote.
“Private-sector members are free to work with legislators to introduce, draft,
model policy.”

Nowhere on the website will you find any model policy or
research relating to voting rights.

Why?

Because ALEC intentionally does not include the policy or
research on their webpage.

As a state legislator, it is my job to be informed as
well as to inform others. I'm a member of ALEC because I want to learn how to
better solve the problems in my state, and I want to share with others what's
working here at home. I encourage every Montanan to visit the ALEC website to
see for yourself the work ALEC members have thoughtfully drafted.

“I encourage every Montanan to visit the ALEC website”

Should be followed up with

BUT I DON’T “encourage every Montanan to ATTEND an ALEC meeting”

because ALEC is NOT that DEMOCRATIC,

cause even it you were
to attend,

you would be barred from attending the meetings where corporate and
right-wing stink-tank legislation is introduced by willing legislators.

#VoteNo2ALEC

ALEC is one nasty,
evil organization.

ALEC hates the
control of the Federal government.

ALEC hates control at
the local level.

They only want evil,
fascist ALEC state legislative members to have control.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Four things hit my attention today that reminded me of more
ALEC state nastiness that most people wouldn’t be aware of.

Like most times when pulling this together, I will rely on the
actual words of ALEC, rather than summarizing them for the reader.I do this because I want you to see the
actual ALEC’s nastiness and not me just reinterpreting on what could be ALEC
nastiness.

This entry really ended up morphing into two topics.

The EVIL of ALEC at
the state and federal level.

And subsequently

The new EVIL of
ALEC at the local – municipal – level.

First:

A recent article that was precipitated by the recent incidents in Ferguson Missouri

In Minnesota
every year, law enforcement agents seize millions of dollars from people during
traffic stops, simply by asserting that the money is connected to some illegal
drug activity. Frequently officers don’t have a warrant and never get a
conviction of criminal charges.

Innocent Minnesotans should not lose their property through
civil forfeiture.

Asset seizures often disproportionately impact those who can
afford it least—low-income African-American or Latino people whom the police
decide look suspicious and for whom the challenge of trying to get property
back is often prohibitively expensive.

the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and
abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil
forfeiture laws of all 50 states and the federal government.

However, in most places, owners bear the burden of
establishing their innocence. In other words, with civil forfeiture, property
owners are effectively guilty until proven innocent.

In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department
of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net
assets—

State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also
use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in
just nine states totaled more than $70 million.

Imagine being pulled over and a law enforcement officer
decides to take your car, cash or other personal property. The officer claims
that he has probable cause to believe not necessarily that you are guilty of
any illegal conduct but that your property was used to facilitate illegal
activity. Perhaps the officer thinks you are carrying a larger-than-normal
amount of cash or that your travel pattern is “suspicious.”

Once your property is taken, the government
will—perhaps—send you a notice letting you know that the burden is on you to
try to get your property back. If you do not respond within the right time
frame and in the proper manner, law enforcement automatically gets to keep your
seized property.

In 1984, Congress
amended portions of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 to create the Assets Forfeiture Fund, into the most troubling
aspect of modern civil forfeiture laws is the profit incentive at their core.

After the 1984 amendments, federal agencies were able to
retain and spend forfeiture proceeds—subject only to very loose
restrictions—giving them a direct financial stake in generating forfeiture
funds.

Though President Reagan's schedule makes it impossible for
him to be with you, I want you to know that he personally salutes your
achievements and completely shares in the spirit of your celebration.

Faith Ryan Whittlesey,
Assistant to the President for Public Liaison

While I will be unable to attend the Eleventh Annual Meeting
personally, I want to again express to you and your fellow ALEC legislators my
appreciation for your continued interest in judicial reform issues. While
President Reagan has taken the initiative in proposing criminal justice reforms
at the Federal level, many ALEC legislators have been in the forefront of
enacting these same reforms at the state level. Your seminars and publications
on these issues have been an excellent reference for many. Best wishes for a
successful convention.

William French Smith,
Attorney General

At that same annual meeting you have this –

12:30-pm Lunch

Speaker: J. Kenneth Cribb, Jr, Assistant Counselor to the President

"The Reagan Administration and Criminal justice"

Which brought me to this

– from two years
earlier

1982

ALEC State
Factor newsletter distributed to all their members- including Congressional
Alumni and Federal Government agency employees who were sympathetic to ALEC governance
preferences:

RAISING REVENUE WITHOUT RAISING TAXES (part D)

second part of a three-part study series

OPTION ONE: FORFEITURE OF ASSETS

One very ingenious method of raising revenue is to enact a
"forfeiture of assets" amendment to state criminal justice statutes.
Simply stated, forfeiture is a proven method for law enforcement agents to
confiscate and sell at auction the goods and commodities traceable to a
criminal activity. The genius of a forfeiture amendment is that it does not
directly involve an alleged offender; law enforcement officers do not have to
prove that a person engaged in a criminal activity. Instead, forfeiture simply
requires authorities to prove "more likely than not" (not "beyond
a reasonable doubt") that a good or commodity was acquired because of a
criminal activity. The key to that distinction is writing the forfeiture
statute as part of civil law rather than criminal law. Authorities must still
demonstrate "probable cause," but the burden of proof (mentioned
above) is somewhat lighter.

Similiarly, [sic] Arizona
and Florida
officials were able to raise a combined $175 million after eighteen months'
enforcement of state pornography-related forfeiture laws.

The forfeiture [sic] statute allows authorities to
confiscate and sell boats, cars, equipment, bank accounts, houses, and any
other item

Collectively, a mass confiscation of all these items can be
worth billions of dollars. …for resale purposes; … Most
of the items can be sold for widespread purposes.

How do we know if this would have moved to the state level
without ALEC?

We don’t.

But - being that Florida and Arizona were involved initially - it's a pretty good guess. Historically, these states have brought lots of nastiness to ALEC to pass around the country.

But with the hidden, secret influence ALEC has held over
state legislature for the past 40 years – it is fair to believe that the state
enactment of forfeiture laws can be directly tied to ALEC.

ALEC has passed policy on civil asset forfeiture and will
consider a motion

to repeal the current model and replace it with an extended
version.

“Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property Protection
Act”

Mr. Lee McGrath, Institute for Justice

To replace “ALEC Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture Act” (2000)

Importantly, this model does not change the authority of law
enforcement to seize property suspected of being associated with crime or limit
in any way prosecutors’ ability to charge and prosecute suspected criminals.
Moreover, it ensures that those individuals proven guilty of a crime do not
keep the fruits of their crime. In doing so, it strikes the right balance
between the individual property rights and public safety.

Later in 2011

November- Public Safety and Elections Task Force Agenda and minutes

The Subcommittee will consider policies and hold an advisory
vote on civil asset forfeiture and transparency in criminal law.

Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on property
rights in America
today. With civil forfeiture— unlike criminal forfeiture—law enforcement in
most states can take your property without even so much as charging you with a
crime, let alone convicting you of one.

Proceeds to states from forfeiture now exceed $500 million
per year. In only eight states are the proceeds from forfeitures under state
law deposited in the state’s general treasury. In the other 42 states, local
law enforcement gets at least half of the proceeds including 26 states where
100 percent of the proceeds supplement the budgets of the law enforcement
agencies

The potential for abuse is rooted in this potential to make money.

As documented in legal cases found in
the past and recent press (for reasons other than the topic of this entry) – potential of abuse
– for monetary gain -can extend to
state legislative members of the American Legislative Exchange.

Which made me think of
this - - -

ALEC's Hatred of Municipal Money

As noted above in the 2012 article, the ALEC adopted new model forfeiture policy included:

“to be deposited
in the state treasury

and

does not allow
them to supplement the budgets

of local law
enforcement”

Think about that!

ALEC hates local control.

So in ALEC states where this new version of the forfeiture policy passes